This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
 Developing a Vision for Assessment Collaborative writing assignments can be assessed in a variety of ways.


Instructors can grade the product in the same way as an individual paper might be assessed, focusing entirely on the content of the writing. In this model, the instructor might assign the same grade to each group member. This model may also be supplemented by formative assessment check-points throughout the project to provide graded or ungraded feedback to the students as they work through the project. If, however, the instructor is focusing at least in part on the process of


collaboration, she may create an assessment plan that focuses not only on the final product, but also on the effectiveness of the collaboration itself. Process assessment can be solely at the discretion of the faculty member, peer evaluation of each member's contribution, or some combination of the two. Some electronic tools such as a wikis enable fine grain analysis of specific group members' contributions to a document. This focus on process is perhaps more appropriate for large-scale, long-term projects; however, students often appreciate being rewarded for the extra time and effort involved in a collaborative writing assignment.


 Strategies for Assessing Collaborative Writing Below we share several strategies that we have used over time to assess


students’ collaborative writing:


 Include the grade as part of students' class participation grade. Collaborative work often improves students' overall participation.  Use a form of self-evaluation:


o In dialogue with instructor over mid-semester evaluation of class participation


o Set up a grading contract that lets students choose what grade they should receive.


22


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128